bytebuster: (CH-cao4)
Question: Is honorific “uncle” common across the languages of the world?

In Russian and English (and as far as I know Chinese) it's customary for kids to use honorific "uncle" when addressing elders by name (as a kid, you'd rather call an adult "uncle John" than "John", even if he's not your uncle).

In Russian, kids would also refer to a male stranger as "uncle".

Is is common across the languages of the world?

As a side question, is it ever used in languages which don't have a generic word for "uncle" (as opposed to "father's brother" and "mother's brother")? If yes, which "uncle" would they use?

Answer:

In Thai, calling people as they were your relatives, is a linguistic norm. Here are some details first:

Read more... )
bytebuster: (Alf)
Продовжуємо підривати ватні пукани:

What is the legal background for Russia's seat as a Permanent Member of UNSC?

At the UN's founding in 1945, the Soviet Union became one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

When in December 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russia was arguably recognized as the legal successor state of the Soviet Union and maintained the USSR's position on the UNSC.

Here's how the events are usually described (highlights are mine):

In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, 11 Soviet republics […] signed the Alma-Ata Protocol on 21 December 1991 […]. The Protocol provided that the Russian Federation would assume Soviet Union's UN membership, including its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. […]

On 24 December 1991, the Soviet Permanent Representative to the UN Yuli Vorontsov delivered to the Secretary-General of the UN a letter from the Russian President Boris Yeltsin. The letter stated that […] Russia would continue the Soviet Union's membership in the UN and maintain the full responsibility for all the rights and obligations of the Soviet Union under the UN Charter.

The letter was circulated among the UN membership without any objection, and Russia formally took over the Soviet Union's seat in the UN General Assembly, in the Security Council and in other organs of the United Nations.

Here's the original text of Alma-Ata Protocol:

Unsurprisingly, Alma-Ata Protocol says nothing about UN or UNSC membership. Just noting. Not even stating membership in "international organizations" or something like that.

I also could not find any UNSC resolutions on this matter, but the quotation from Wikipedia suggests that the only valuable document there was Yeltsin's "letter" that "circulated without any objection".

Adopting an UNSC Permanent member seems to be a critical change. Even "less critical" actions, like admitting new UN members, went through adoption of a certain Resolution. For example, three Baltic states were admitted as UN members in the same year of 1991 via UNSC Resolutions 709, 710, and 711. Then, in 1992, more liberated states were also amitted via adopting corresponding UNSC Resolutions 735-739.

Question:

  1. Have the liberated states formally delegated Russia to continue the USSR's membership in the UNSC?
  2. Is there an UNSC Resolution confirming Russia's seat as an UNSC P5 Member in place of USSR? If so, based on what document(s)?
bytebuster: (CH-biang3biang3mien4)
А доречі… Why some sections of Great Wall of China seem to be bidirectional?

Official historiography says that Great Wall of China is built "across the historical northern borders of China to protect the Chinese states and empires against the raids and invasions of the various nomadic groups of the Eurasian Steppe." — (Wikipedia)

Eurasian Steppe is located North from Chinese states, so the fortifications supposed to face North, toward the place where possible invaders may come from.

However, looking at pictures of Great Wall, I notice many places where the fortifications rather look like bi-directional, e.g. they seem to be convenient to aid defense from both directions, to North and to South, merely equally.

Here's what I mean:

Unidirectional Bidirectional

(Left: unidirectional; right: bidirectional)

It is not only about walls itself. Some towers also look like they are built to assist fire in both directions.

Question: Is there a decent explanation of this phenomenon?

Disclaimer. I'm not a military expert, so answers like "your question comes from a false premise, because…" are also greatly appreciated.

bytebuster: (CH-biang3biang3mien4)
На StackExchange є такий рашист Anixx, широко відомий у вузьких колах московський пропагондон.
Ну і от, цей пропагондон  насмілився задавати питання тіпа отакого:

Why Ukrainian language sounds so funny to Russians?

Many Ukrainian words sound very funny to the Russian ear, unlike other Slavic and non-Slavic languages or Russian dialects. I wonder why? Many Ukranian words became humorous neo-logisms in Russian.

Just some examples:

  • незалежна, незалежність "independent", "independence". To the Russian ear this sounds as a derivative from a verb "залёживаться" which means "to be lying too much time because being unneeded, undemanded". This is often used for goods in a store which are not bought for a long time. "Залежалый" means outdated products in a store or in another place because of being unneeded to anybody. Thus the Ukrainian word for being independent sounds like "something not lying without demand", "something which is actively bought in a store". The Maidan (square) or independence in Kiev sounds like "The square dedicated to not being undemanded".


Коротше кажучи, ця ганьба висіла більше року. Мою першу скаргу модератор відхилив.
Але от сьогодні я накопав цю фігню знову і послав повторний запит.
Результат — фашистське питання випилено.

Причому не одне, а цілих два. Кому цікаво — читаймо усе размо з коментарями.
У кого є багато репутації на Linguistics.SE, може читати тут: раз, два. А хто ні — під катом скріншоти.
Зеленим позначені я сам і наші, а червоним — пропагондони і прочіє рашисти.

Read more... )

Допилив

Вівторок, 1 Грудень 2015 00:46
bytebuster: (Default)
«Repeat after me: StackExchange is not a social network».

Це ми давно знаємо. Але на деяких сайтах часто постає необхідність фільтрувати дописи саме за юзерами, а не за інформацією, яку вони надають. Найяскравішим прикладом є Politics.StackExchange, де московської сволоти дуже багато, ефективного спротиву вони не отримують, а їхні тупі відповіді без пруфів дають їм багато баллів репутації, завядяки яким ці юзери потім вважаються поважними.

Я доволі давно користувався плаґіном Favorite Users — він є як для Firefox, так і для Chrome та Opera, а також є версія для Reddit. Плаґін розмальовує сторінку, аби швидко помічати дописи від тих, ким цікавишся. Ну, наприклад, свої власні дописи важливо бачити у контексті інших. Виглядає це отак:

Read more... )

Але для того ж Politics, одної групи недостатньо. Очевидно, треба хоча-б дві: «цікавих» і «неадек-ватників» і прочіх безмозглих рашистів, читання яких є марним витрачанням часу. Приблизно так:



Що я, власне, і запилив.
Ще трошки відшліфую код і надішлю авторові.
Кому цікаво, можу викласти бету (FireFox) прямо зараз.
bytebuster: (Default)
Написав ще одну фундаментальну відповідь на Politics.StackExchange.
My two cents І ще, принагідно дякую. Моє питання про тероризм і релігію наразі посідає 4/5 місце за кількістю голосів за весь час існування сайту.

Q:Did Turkey take revenge of Russian attacks on ISIS by downing the plane?

Is it possible that Turkey downed the Russian jet because they did not want Russia to be attacking ISIS (and maybe the Syrian Rebels)?

It is quite clear that Turkey is the one who buys Oil from ISIS and it is also clear that Turkish border is freely used for movement in and out of Syria(and thus Iraq). Also Turkey is against Kurdish people, who are a major force fighting against ISIS(probably the most successful one on the ground).

Is it possible that Turkey believes that attacking russian plane (likely inside Syrian territory) will stop Russia from conducting more attacks close to it's border and hence it will be able to continue sending more fighters to Syria and continue to buy oil from ISIS?

I source many of these comments from military experts (retired military officers) in India, which in my experience are very neutral towards both NATO/USA and Russia.

A: This question comes from several claims which are, at minimum, unproven and, at maximum, are untrue. Here they are:

Claim: Russia is attacking ISIS

Reality:

Read more... )
bytebuster: (Default)
Terrorism has NO religion
"Terrorism has NO religion." Why don't Moderate Muslims restrain their Radical counterparts?

Моє питання про арапський тероризм набирає обертів на StackExchange.
Питаннячко вже дві доби висить на Hot Network Questions, вже має 7,000 переглядів за дві доби (і я щиро сподіваюся на десять тисяч), купу відповідей і ще більше коментарів (коментарі перенесені модераторами до чату, кому цікаво).
Запрошую до відповідей і голосування.

Read more... )
bytebuster: (GangnamCat)
В смислі, питання потрапило на першу сторінку Hot Questions на StackExchange
Приходьте, плюсуйте і пишіть свої відповіді. :)

“Terrorism has no religion.” Why don't Moderate Muslims restrain their Radical counterparts?

bytebuster: (Default)
Фашня разом з іншою свєрхдєржавою (Зімбабве, ага) голосує проти заборони касетних бомб.

Next, action was taken on the draft resolution on the implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions (document A/C.1/70/L.49/Rev.1), by which the Assembly would urge all States outside the Convention to join as soon as possible, and also express strong concern regarding recent allegations and evidence of the use of cluster munitions in different parts of the world.

That text was approved by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 2 against (Russian Federation, Zimbabwe), with 40 abstentions.



Доречі, приходьте на StackExchange:

What is the geostrategic reason for Zimbabwe to keep Cluster Munitions legal?


Read more... )
bytebuster: (Default)
Я оце сиджу і думаю, що треба активніше подавати інформацію про сучасну війну на англомовному сегменті.
Наприклад, є така штука, як StackExchange (SE). А саме, два сайти — Politics.SE та Hstoiry.SE.
Чим мені подобається там — це те, що будь-яке питання чи відповідь має ґрунтуватися на посиланнях. Тобто, те саме, що я роблю тут, у своєму бложику. За голослівні твердження жорстоко мінусують.

Біда у тому, що наразі там тусує досить велика кількість ватних «спеціалістів», явно мордорських, які усім розповідають про миролюбну Староросію.
Я помаленьку там теж тусую і намагаюся показувати реальну картину.

Ось намєдні людина запитала:
Why was the Soviet Union unable to stop the violence in Nagorno-Karabakh?
А я відповів, що:
Because the goal of the Soviet Russia was completely the opposite.
The whole reason of creation of Karabakh, Zangezur, Nakhchivan, and many others was to put a "ticking bomb" under every country occupied by the Russia, including both Armenia and Azerbaijan.
So that in a case of any national-liberation attempt, the bomb has to trigger a civil war.


Або от моє питання, таке собі трололо московської рашні:
Have the terrorists ever traded hostages for land?
Read more... )
Сторінку створено Неділя, 14 Грудень 2025 21:16

Вересень 2025

П В С Ч П С Н
123 4567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     
Створено з Dreamwidth Studios

За стиль дякувати